Design Charrette: February 7-21
Project: Grosse Pointe Central Library,
expansion and renovation
Grosse Pointe, MI
Architect: Marcel Breuer, 1953.



The community of Grosse Pointe, Michigan has a cultural treasure that is in danger of being demolished - the Central Library, designed by noted architect and educator Marcel Breuer. Such stories are becoming commonplace across the country. Modern architectural gems are slowly disappearing despite the protests of those who recognize their value as part of our shared twentieth century artistic and cultural heritage.

But there is a chance to save this local landmark from demolition! The Modern Architecture Protection Agency (MAPA) was organized by a group of concerned Archinect members with the express purpose of demonstrating that design ingenuity can lead to solutions that accommodate contemporary needs while respecting modern landmarks. To this end, we have organized a Design Charrette that will show the Grosse Pointe Library’s Board of Directors that imaginative solutions can solve their programmatic needs while saving the Breuer-designed facility from demolition.





“…the library board plans to demolish the Grosse Pointe Central Library and replace it with a newer, bigger structure, despite efforts by some to save the original.
The dispute is unusual on several fronts. Unlike most endangered landmarks, the Central Library isn't a neoclassical or Romanesque edifice from the 1800s, but a modernist work built in 1953.”
Source:
Icon is worth saving. Grosse Pointe Central Library is slated for razing,
Detroit Free Press, January 20, 2007.

Other recent articles on the proposed demolition:
Mid-Century Library to be Demolished
Grosse Pointe library hopes to replace its aging branch
Additional information on the current status of the project, the library's history and Marcel Breuer can be found on MAPA's Wiki


This Design Charrette is open to all interested parties, is noncompetitive, and begins immediately.

MAPA’s primary goal is to gather ideas and proposals that demonstrate the existing library's viability and leverage its unique design and its place in the history of Grosse Pointe. Ideas should be imaginative but also realistic—the best ideas will represent creative possibilities while also serving as a “feasibility study” that the library board can appreciate. Images, narratives, and numbers are all welcome. Submissions will be presented to the library board on February 26th, at their monthly board meeting. Presentation boards will also be displayed at the Ewald Branch Library on March 1st and 2nd, after which time they will be exhibited at another location within the Pointes (to be determined with the help of AIA Detroit‘s Urban Priorities Committee).

Archinect will also host an online gallery of the submissions.


Interested in participating? Here are the format requirements:
Participants should submit their proposals as one or more 11x17 image files (landscape format, .jpg or .tif only please).
There is no limit to the number of 11x17 boards per entry.
There is no limit to the number of entries per participant.
All boards should include the standard title block. Please update with personal information (using Futura font). The standard title block should be located on the right side of each sheet, oriented vertically.
Individual emails should not exceed 10 mb in size.
Submissions should be emailed to BreuerLibraryCharrette@gmail.com on or before midnight (Pacific Standard Time), February 21, 2007.


Summary of Program:
Recommended program square footage: 53,747
Current building gross square footage: 18,740
Addition size to meet recommendation: approx 35,000

Program components:
12,900 sf for book stacks
600 sf for periodicals
2200 sf for audio/visual
2000 sf for public network access
4500 sf of reading/seating
7600 sf of Staff work space
1600 sf program/meeting room
460 sf conference/board room
725 sf storytime room
525 sf computer training room
6625 sf Multi-purpose/special use space
13,249 Non-assigned support spaces
750 for Receiving Dock/garage

Parking proposals to support programmed space.


Project Documents:
1 - detailed program narrative (PDF, 17 pages)
2 - detailed program, square footage requirements (PDF, 33 pages)
3 - site photos (folder w/ JPEGs)
4 - site photo montages (folder w/ JPEG's)
5 - site survey (folder w/2 CAD files)
6 - drawings of 1953 building (folder w/ 7 PDFs)

Physical Address of building (not to be used as contact information):
10 Kercheval Ave, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236



*This thread is intended solely as a venue for questions regarding the design charrette, and will be moderated to stay on message.

This effort is supported by:
The Grosse Pointe Library's Board of Directors
Archinect


Brought to you by:

bravo.

Can we have some expansion of the "Parking to support programmed space" requirement? As parking is clearly a big issue for them (as noted in the other thread about this topic, can we get a rough idea how much parking is actually needed, or at least a base estimate to shoot for: a ratio of 1:300 (1 parking space for each 300 sf of usable building square footage) was suggested. Does this seem like a reasonable amount to shoot for? With suggested other solutions should the site not support that amount - mass transit, off-site, etc.?

there are municipality guidelines for parking, but they seemed extremely high, something like 1:200sf. we might need to look into the potential for variances in grosse pointe.

also to be explored: once we decide a variance is possible, the library's assessment of their actual need.

i'll try to follow-up.

the site now has 22 parking spaces. 1:300 would require 166 spaces which is undoable.

Can we get the thread title to be in red on the discussions page?

bravo indeed....(its quite early here on the west coast) but I see we are up! sweet.

as for the parking is there a possibility of relaxed approach by the city for this issue (as opposed to a variance which requires lobbying)??? just asking, and Steven if you have some contacts at the city, possibly also enquire about the sharing of parking with those lots that were mentioned in the original thread, please!

no go on the red title, Chili, for a few reasons related to html repercussions elsewhere on the site.

The banner does a good job directing attention here, and the thread sticks to the top of the discussion list.

Also, these types of questions/concerns (I'm sure we will have more) should be posted to the initial breuer thread, leaving this thread for queries about the building program, submission criteria, and other aspects of the charrette.

Thanks,
Aaron

Aaron,

Agreed. Is someone moderating this thread to delete off-topic responses?

yep

vado, I haven't gotten any further in the project brief, but is it legally possible to actually build a parking facility two storeis high on top of the parking lot?

French-
Max height is 55' per zoning, existing bldg is 24'-11.5".

open parking garages of type IV construction can be four tiers high and have 50,000 sq.ft. per tier. of course, there isn't room for that.

does anyone know what the building next door is? the institutional looking one in the lot adjacent.

huge congrats for making this happen - and at such a high level in such a short amount of time.

John, to which side are you talking, cause there's the ballfield to one side. (do you mean across the street)

From our discussions, and chili's visit (I think it was chili) the bldgs directly in front are small 'mom & pop' businesses that line the street with some residential thrown in.

(if Im not mistaken - anyone else know exactly)
Chili, Sheets, puddles??

yeah, I was looking at the wrong thing.

From the original thread:


montage011
the buildings across the street to the north of the central library. from the left: a raymond james investment office, a brooks borthers, a national city bank branch and then residential across the street from there

and correction it was puddles (thanks mate) for our montages and discriptions. Hope that helps john

Thoughts about Parking: "Don't let the tail wag the dog!"

Master Plan Grosse Pointe

www.grossepointemi.us/f/master_plan.pdf

"The Village

Encourage a lively social enviromental and economic viable downtown with a wide variety of uses in a pedisterian oriented unified setting,
with shared parking."

Page 49 Grosse Pointe Master Plan


See Page 83 for mention of parking structures.

we need to get as many boards to that meeting as possible. Make them realize that there are solutions to be had

Although this site references and area of Grosse Point as "The Village" I think is should apply to any Civic Buildings. We are
planning for the future and we all have a pretty good idea it will
include alot better use of our resources.

Great stuff...that is an extensive amount of information compiled so quickly. It will be great seeing the displays in the gallery

I hope they don't commit this atrocity. Someday they'll regret it.

May I make a suggestion?

Considering the small format (11 x 17) and the fact that these will be presented to the Library Board, do you think it would make sense for us to create a standard "title block" type of graphic into which we can insert any important information and then put it on our presentation boards?

I am just thinking that many of us have graphic styles and we always want our presentations to look good, but I don't want the Board to get caught up in the graphics, but to focus on the content.

Does that make sense? Since the whole thing is noncompetitive, I didn't think it would be a big deal.

yes, I was thinking the same thing and concur with DubK. Let's make it as slimline as possible so that the 'image' can come through clearly.
Maybe rationalist would like a crack at it?

i think that the titleblock should include 'architecture sucks' somewhere on it

liberty-bell... mass transit in grosse pointe is not really a viable option (have you ever been to Detroit?) - I think promoting pedestrian access to the site is a better sell for the local neighborhood - especially in terms of alleviating some of the parking.

are they planning on using some of the adjacent field parking for library use? is below-grade parking an option?

what are "non-assigned support spaces?" and why is this number so high?

I think the number of parking will be much lower - "support space" probably doesn't count towards parking - and since this is a library - the number of users at any time will be much lower that typical retail requirements.

I'm interested to see what you guys come up with.

-to

[ahem] and we're interested to see what you come up with, toasteroven!

Exactly toasteroven - what can you show us? Sounds like you are familiar with the site, good!

And yeah I haven't been to GP in about 14 years, but of course a People Mover there would be a disaster. I do think it's important that proposals try to propose interesting, alternative solutions - maybe a People Mover is bad, but a shuttle bus isn't an impossibility?

amen...Liberty bell.....a hybrid shuttle

below-grade parking is an option.

...(5) Parking Structure: below street level with 62-65 spaces, 9-10 foot ceiling able to accommodate full-size vans, a well- lit, comfortable environment with easy access to the Library.

via

this, and a wealth of other background information, is available on MAPA's wiki, which is linked in the original post.

if someone is designing a title block please make sure to include the libraries logo in the design.

Ahem....

OK, is someone designing a title block? Are we in agreement that this is a good idea?

Maybe you should specified the format of the title block, since some people will make autocad presentations, others will use microstation, other will use indesign and what not depending on the way they work....
It's a tough job to design soemthing coherent that matches all of the possible format.
Maybe it should be designed in any cad program, outputed as a raster image (ie tiff or jpeg for instance) to be inserted in any program?

I think that's a good idea French. Actually it could also be designed in another program, just as long as it's a tiff or jpg format so that it can them be just placed as an image/raster image in cadd or microstation.

So DubK r you working on the title block/logo thing??
(did you volunteer)??
:o)

a good observation from jafindler on the original thread:

Food for thought:

From my experience at the site, the most visible elevation is not the one facing the street, but the one to the east. You see it prominently coming down the hill from Kercheval because of the openness of the ball field. Right now that elevation is very plain, a brick wall with staggered slit windows, and I think has contributed to the perception by some in the community of the building as a modern eyesore. As much as it seems any addition should feature the original building, I believe these side elevations, particularly the one to the east, are critical to enhancing the image of the building.

I will volunteer. I am all about organization. However I would like some clarification from you all on nomenclature, etc.

For instance, this is what I am thinking:

-Title of project
-"February 2006"
-Name and location of designer (I think it would be neat for them to see that we are from everywhere!)
-Submission #, if applicable
-Site location
-Organization representing????

That last one is tricky....are we all a member of MAPA or is this something that Archinect is officially supporting? Perhaps this was covered somewhere and I missed it.... Of course I would like the senior editors to weigh in on this as well.

PS. Final titleblock will be a JPEG, resolution to be determined. JPEGs should work in every program.

in terms of inclusion of the archinect logo?

i believe the answer is yes, John. Thoughts?

otherwise, i agree w/vado re: using the library's logo.

I believe, unless paul thinks otherwise, that we would like to be included on the title block, but not in a way that overstates the work of MAPA.

steven - so, you want me to do all the work? ;-)

Liberty Bell - I grew up around there - I know that building. I was just in the area a couple months ago...

Does this building have an existing basement? from the looks of the drawings it appears to be slab on grade.... after a brief chat with the parking expert in my office (we do a lot of retrofitting of existing structures), the only way you can keep the building and do underground parking is if there is built structure below grade which can be converted. Otherwise it's economically unfeasible.

-to

in addition, if I have time I will submit a proposal too. but I sort of feel that there should be a mid-review so there isn't too much redundancy in the schemes...? what do the rest of you think?

to,
the parking doesn't have to go beneath the existing building. that would likely be quite difficult to pull off (or as you stated, 'economically unfeasible'). It could very well go beneath the existing parking lot, or beneath the adjacent baseball field.

I was looking at the Google Aerial and I was wondering, maybe they
should purchase the lot across the street and create some parking
there.

LB.....It looks like the edge of, "The Village" Business district is about six blocks away. Wouldn't a Shuttle make alot of sense,
between the schools, library and the primary business area.

Damn I'd like to do it too, only I'm busy as hell right now. When is the deadline again?

toasteroven: if you look at this drawing:

3secondfloorplancrosssections.pdf

you'll see there is a boiler room below grade that could perhaps be connected to an underground parking below the the current parking lot.... i'm not positive though if this would work and where you would put the current boiler room. the boiler room plan is here.

Current building has underground construction-a boiler room, not much room to convert. As stated above, parking under the existing parking and neighboring fields seems much more feasible, from way out here on the left coast.
j

to any and all of the illustrious title block designers. a quick look at an 11x17 sheet with the existing floorplan at 1":20' + a doubling of existing fp to account for a new footprint does not leave much room on the short side of the sheet. i would recommend putting any title information on the right side of the sheet running vertically.

I just noticed the layout issue too Vado, thanks....you beat me to it!
:o)

Wait, these are supposed to be landscape oriented, correct? So that IS the short side of the sheet.....

is there any images of the title block?

hello monitor hello???

Give me through the weekend to work the title block out.





Disclaimer: I am offering to do this "title block" business because I think that if the library people get 40-odd layouts in front of them with 40-odd graphic styles, they are going to get confused. I just thought it was a good idea to present a unified front, and for the sake of clarity.

That said, the title block will be very simple, legible, and representative of both our respect for the project and our online community. I am, however, just a humble forum member with an idea, so I will offer it up only when I am finished with it. I will not be soliciting opinions on its final format here, as this is not a competition and obviously I have better things to do with my time. If you want it, you will let me know. If not, c'est la vie.





And no, I will not put the Garwondler in it.

totally DubK.....I think everyone was on board with your thoughts on the titleblock. It will help to unify the cause and our voice (the archinect voice) or is it the MAPA voice? nevertheless, yeah I think it's a good thing.

Thank you!

I might have to delete that thing

We could pull a Jack Kerouak, and do it on a continuous roll of paper....like "On The Road"

john has the power...

you guys asked me to moderate...so I moderated

tanks John!

do we have any info on setbacks? if anyone has figured them out, could they post them? thanks.

THOUGHT THIS MIGHT GET SOME JUICES FLOWING:
DESIGNERS OF THE YEAR JIM RICHARD AND KELLY BAUER

LOTS OF LIRARY WORK

http://www.richard-bauer.com/

aml,

i was trying to search for the site's zoning but didn't find anything on the internet that gave a definitive answer (i guess it's a phone call away)...

according to the municipal code, in the city of grosse pointe the zoning are:

E-R Estate Residential (chapter 90, article VI, div. 2)
R-1A Single Family Residence (chapter 90, article VI, div. 3)
R-1B Single Family Residence (div.4)
R-T terrace district (div.5)
RO-1 Restricted Office (div.6)
C-1 Local Business (div.7)
C-2 Central Business (div.8)
P-1 Parking

we can eliminate all the residential zoning in this case, vehicular parking and we're left with the C-1 and C-2 (and slight chance of RO-1)...but these three have the same setback requirements according to the schedule provided in Article VII of the Zoning Code...

my interpretation is that there isn't a front yard set back along Kercheval...
side yard of not less than 7 feet (tricky, the site is a corner lot)
but if a side yard is adjacent to a street then there isn't a setback requirement.

i'm still lost on the rear yard setback requirements...

oops, correction...it should say..."my interpretation is that there isn't a front yard set back requirement along Kercheval..."

as far as "aesthetics", C-2 is ultra prescriptive...

we'll have to try to get more information on municipal codes/regs. note that there are five "pointes", and we're not in "grosse pointe city" but in "grosse pointe farms". grosse pointe farms' regs apparently are not online but can probably be assumed to be similar.

i've been working on getting a print document of the farms' regs for distribution, but have to go to an out-of-state funeral until tuesday. so might not be quick. can't imagine they're TOO different from the city's. ??

received the following from vickey bloom, the director of the grosse pointe libraries, on friday:

"One thing to keep in mind is that the programming statement has not been looked at since it was finished in 2001. We always sit down with the architect once hired and review. The square footage for this building needs to be between 40,000-45,000 because we were able to build the branches bigger than what the programming statement called for.

"The library knows when it gets to the city level there will have to be a variance for parking. The architect we have been working with thought 1 for every 300 sq ft. (I think). Until we get to city council level with a plan, we won't know for sure how they will react. I think they will work with us but I don't know to what extent."

...but note the following, from my earlier post on the original breuer thread, other information that i've picked up:

the ancillary parking lot was...built by the high school for athletics. as i hear it, this was somewhat ironic since the high school had previously said that this area was inviolate and could NOT accommodate library parking expansion because it would compromise the ball field. when the high school needed the spaces, they built them. the library does have use of some of these spaces: 2 that puddles saw, marked accordingly, and 14 others. all together the library now has about 38-42 spaces available.

i've also heard that, with osler/milling's plans for expansion that were drafted in the 80s (ultimately voted down), and with some dealing with adjacent/nearby properties and the municipality, the library was going to be allowed to provide only 48 total spaces after their expansion. if that agreement could still be honored with this expansion, it would make the job a lot easier. at 40-ish now, they'd be pretty close.

i have emailed the director to ask - independent of local regs - how many spaces they think the library actually would NEED.

is there ten thousand fewer square feet just for stacks or what???

Is this the logo that I should be using in the title block?

indeed!

Design Charette Day One: Frank Gehry contribution:

Charrette Day One:

Team Charedder:

CoTeamLeaders:




charrette essentialz:





red pens:


in the hands of a master:



leave the bumwad. take the cannolli:




so far:

Glad some of you are working on visuals. Just in case people thought it wasn't possible to fit the program onto the site with the existing building... You can, with a three story addition. I included circulation where appropriate, could have added more sf but opted not too. I am sure there are other araingments that of the program that would work also. I just wanted to make sure that even the current recommended program could physically fit on the site within the restrictions given.

It is worth noting that there is no property line legally defined between the library and the sports fields. I can't see any reason to not encroach right up to the current fence lines.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17556660@N00/386313470/

So, if you park underground, use some sort of sharing, or some other scheme other than surface parking on the site. It will work.

Now on to visuals worth looking at.

j

very nice collaborative effort in indianapolis. i really dig the use of trace paper.

regarding the issue of parking...i'll offer a couple of casual observations here (i.e., i hope they're not misleading) from my visit to the library a couple of sundays ago. first of all, the library was busy. the interior felt almost crowded and even before the library opened (i arrived about noon & it opened at 13:00) i noticed numerous people leaving books in the drop box...so this branch definitely gets use. also, the existing parking lot was pretty much full and so were most of the choice, street side parking spots in front of the building. however, having said that, most of the other parking in the area remained empty. despite the libary lot being near full, nobody had yet parked in the adjacent baseball field parking lot (the one that includes two dedicated spots for the library)



and all of the spots near the the football field were completely empty. there doesn't appear to be any reason many of these spaces couldn't be shared since it would seem that they would typically have diffferent peak hours of usage. i mean football games are on friday evenings when i suspect that the library probably isn't so busy. also, in my own usage of public libraries i frequented them most when i was in high school. typically after classes got out for the day, in the early evening. this would seem to fit well with the needs of the nearby high school. lastly, because this library is primely situated within a mostly residential community, i suspect that many of their users are within walking distance of the branch. and indeed, even on that very cold winter sunday when i visited, many people could be observed walking up to the front door of the central library. granted the definition of "walking distance" has probably changed over the past fifty years and that many of the people who might have formerly walked in the past are now more likely to simply drive over.

in any event, a new library—a larger library—would likely require more parking...but i also suspect that this is something that the municipality should probably tackle on a slightly larger scale. that is, perhaps they should consider adding a larger municipal parking lot to service the entire "hill" area as a destination rather than leaving the individual entities in the area to fight it out amongst themselves for parking spaces. maybe a couple of levels buried under the baseball field (the one adjacent to our library that aml highlights in the image below) or perhaps an above ground deck placed to the north east of our library location. i'm thinking about a block up kercheval to the north of the main "hill" area business district. you can see it in this photo that aml posted. i'm talking about the spot that would be in the rear of the businesses on the northside of kercheval. it's already a good sized parking lot and it would a have a baseball field (seems to be a popular sport in grosse pointe, no?) to buffer it from the nearby residences. adding a one or two levels here should easily provide enough parking to accomodate the needs of the entire "hill" area in a central location within easy walking distance of everything.



also, many michiganders have been spoiled by the large amount of space that living in the midwest generally provides and because of that they tend to feel that parking garages are scary places...dark, cramped and well-suited for muggers & hoodlums to hang out in. of course, i feel that those are ridiculous & irrational fears and i'd rather focus on the positives of parking structures. namely, that they are a semi-climate controlled enviroment. that is, they tend to be cooler during the sweltering hot days of summer and they also provide protection for your car from the rain & snow elements. really, what's the advantage of a surface lot when you have to get into a car that's about 110 degrees inside during july or you having to spend 10 minutes warming it up & scrapping ice of it during january?

lastly, a valet service at the library could also be a possibility.

josh, we also did quite a bit of space analysis and are also managing to fit the program - barely, and with some createive jamming of uses into existing spaces - in a three story addition. It does seem possible to accommodate them functionally, and I think we're getting a pretty cool building put together out of it too.

vado and I are both really interested in addressing the program ralisticaly and thus sticking to the site constraints for the required program. That said, we are also thinking urbanistically and looking to locate parking across Kercheval - in a structure that will fill the commercial gap across th street from the ball park (as shown above in the aerial) and provide a more pedestrian-oriented environment on that city block. I am actually really excited about the pedestrian possibilities here, as from the photos on the ftp site you can see a lot of people are out and about on the street, even in weather cold enough to support ice sculptures!

(We are providing ADA parking and loading at the buidling.)

While parking decks are deemed somewhat progressive (or at least a necessary evil) in the architecture and urban design world, I would strongly recommend not lobbying too hard for a deck adjacent to or across from the site. Parking decks are killing downtown Detroit. For every adaptive reuse of an existing building, another building is torn down to build a deck to service it. Downtown Detroit is a mish mash of empty buildings, surface parking lots, new ugly parking decks, and the occasional functioning building. There is a lot of antagonism towards decks in this area.

Parking is something to build when there is a need for it. From what I have seen, I see no reason to add additional parking to the site or the Hill area. Clever partnership and reuse of existing parking I think will make for a much stronger proposal.

Additionally, I picked up a copy of the Grosse Pointe News yesterday. The editorial came out strongly in favor of saving the existing library, and noted, "When architects across the country learned the library board here was leaning towards tearing down the Marcel Breuer-designed building erected in 1953, they bombarded the board and library administration with e-mails objecting to the demolition of the architectural gem...Due to the nationwide backlash to razing the building, including letters to the editor of the Grosse Pointe News and Detroit daily papers, the library board did some backpedaling last week and said it had not yet decided the fate of the Central Branch."

We are making difference! Let's keep at it.

The letters to the editor regarding the library were also interesting. One came out against any new tax to cover the construction cost of a new library. Basically saying we've already built two new libraries, why do we need a third? The more our proposals can address economy (like any project, I suppose) the better off they will be.

great info jafidler. thank you.

well, i wasn't really thinking of the parking decks in downtown detroit which are clearly out of scale for anything needed here.

i had in mind something more along the lines of what you might find in some of the east coast suburbs. brookline or cambridge, massachusetts immediately come to mind as the ones that i'm most familiar with as cities/urban suburbs that have a similar "feel" to our grosse pointe. something maybe two stories & probably covered in brick, maybe with retail at street level too...that'd probably work well here...and that's only if more parking is deemed necessary & as i mentioned before, i'm not convinced that's the case.

I just spoke with Terry at Grosse Pointe Farms building department. Here's what he said. the setbacks at this site are 25' for the front yards, 15' for the side yard and 30' for the rear yard. However, he went on to say that there are several zero lot line setback projects that have been built to promote a more pedestrian/urban sensibility. Two of the precedents are the 5/3rd bank and the Punch and Judy building. He was very helpful and stated that many people in the area including the Historic building commission are not keen on any teardown. So, brainstorm away!!!

great info vado, thanks.


the standard title block is now available. Also, the original post has been updated to include the following, below the "interested in participating" section:

All boards should include the standard title block. Please update with personal information (using Futura font). The standard title block should be located on the right side of each sheet, oriented vertically.


If the wording needs to be tweaked for clarity etc, just let me know.

That link doesn't seem to be working just yet, for me, anyway.

In the meantime, if you are curious, you can view it on my Flickr page.

I do want to mention a couple of technical issues.

1) It is currently sized at 1.5" wide by 10" high. As most of us have not really attempted our final presentations yet, I think we should stay open to the possibility of shrinking it, in case it takes up too much real estate on the page. Fortunately it is helpful to have this discussion for such reasons!

2) The font used is Futura. Please be aware of this if you go to use the Illustrator file. If you do not have Futura on your computer, please be mindful of the design intent when selecting a substitute.

3) If you are creating your presentation in AutoCAD, you can insert the title block as a raster image in your layout.

4) You can desaturate it to black and white (currently it is blue) if you so choose.


Please let us know if you have questions.

the link on the original post works for me...if others can't reach it, please let me know.

the title block looks good. this is a cery exciting project. Is anyone going to go to meeting on the 26th?

i'm now planning to attend the feb 26th library board meeting. not sure yet if there will be others.

puddles don't wear your Architecture S shirt...

but do wear LE$$ t shirt if you have one....

"the setbacks at this site are 25' for the front yards, 15' for the side yard and 30' for the rear yard."

vado, did you get where it says this in the zoning code? that sounds high...can parking encroach in yards?...what's the zoning on the site? is that existing or required? haven't looked at the cad siteplan/survey, but just how it appears on the aerial it looks like that's what it has now...

i got that from thee man at the grosse pointe farms building department.

i hope terry is mistaken...because after the setback , the site is pretty much left with the existing footprint...and that seems crazy to fit all the program plus parking (at least some on-site parking outside of the variance)...in l.a. parking can encroach in the rear yard, but not in the front and sides...if that's the case here then that helps...otherwise...i don't see how we can fit the extra program and provide parking without going underground...

and that seems insane as well to keep an existing building on site and some how build two levels below grade of subterranean parking...$$$

but i'm not giving up yet...if we can prove those setbacks(15, 25, 30) are wrong then i think there's a chance...

"and that seems insane as well to keep an existing building on site and some how build two levels below grade of subterranean parking...$$$"

i'm worried about retaining walls and retaining the foundation of the existing builing while building the subterranean parking...

damn i can't believ i'm quoting myslef

...However, he went on to say that there are several zero lot line setback projects that have been built to promote a more pedestrian/urban sensibility...

Yes, dammson, I think that Vado's conversation with the "man from grosse pointe farms building department" added that it would be feasible to suggest that you could encroach into the rear yard. Hell, I'd say for the sake of this brainstorming session that we explore all , and I mean ALL possibilities that will help provide solutions, because after all this is what it's about right?

Dammson...I emailed you mate, gimme a call!

Nice cannolli, vr and lb.

Geez I leave for a minute and cool stuff happens. Well, not cool stuff. Actually horrible stuff, but it's cool to see this thread.

Where's my pen?

When you say setbacks, you assume that property lines exist. There are no recorded property lines between the school and the library. This gives us quite a bit of negotiation space, there will need the be an agreement between the school and the library and that is that. The assumed property line can be moved by mutual agreement of the two parties (probably easier said than done). The good thing is that it requires no real take over of land, just an agreement that the library can build up to the existing fence line, and then the assumed property line shimmies over as necessary. The real hard limitation, as I see it, is any required separation/protection of the existing structure to the south of the property, presumably a sports/track storage shed.
j

So josh, is it correct to then say that there are only prop lines on the street sides (2 sides from what I recall) of the property? IN other words the 2 other sides are the school and the ballfield?? is that right?

garpike....I was looking to do a charretting here in LA, wanna join me? Let me know.

squirrelly, not in the cards, at least not in the time frame given. I am working on a competition all week, then moving this weekend.

Maybe a little last minute next week?

sure mate, just gimme a shout! best wishes with the comp and the move.

Will do.

Thanks.

Squirrelly,
There are NO recorded property lines between the library and the school, just the street sides. Not an uncommon situation with municipal properties.
j